Before Watchmen

Fraxon! · 20 Jul 1976

Ocean Doot wrote:

Li'l Jay wrote:

Ocean Doot wrote:

My point is simple: Wein comes off as an idiot when he says what he says in the way that he says.)

There's a simple explanation for that -- he is one!

So just because he's an idiot, that makes it all okay?

Your Len Wein apologism sickens me, sir.

Quite.

Ocean Doot · 25 Oct 2007

Fraxon gets me.

Li'l Jay · 28 May 2006

Ocean Doot wrote:

All of that said, "giving talent a chance to do their own take on characters is not an affront to humanity" ... if this is what you think Moore's point is, then you are misreading it as badly as you say I am misreading Wein's. Did you see the extended quote? It's not the "giving talent a chance to work on characters" thing that is the point of contention, it's the fact that in many cases, this is done against the wishes of the characters' creators. Not just Moore, but several significant creators in comics' long history.

I'm not missing that. That's all there is. Those are the two choices to consider -- live in a world where characters are locked down forever if their creator expresses that wish, or live in the world we live in. The point is I'd rather things be as they are -- give Claremont a shot at X-Men, and we win. Kirby was wrong. That's okay.

If it's about money, let the contracts, the lawyers, and if necessary the laws of the land solve that, and give the estates whatever money they're due. Separate question. I'm just saying that in the comics world we live in, new works get created with previous popular characters, I'm fine with that, Alan Moore will live, and Watchmen is not a special case.

Hanzo the Razor · 24 Jun 2007

Ocean Doot wrote:

Li'l Jay wrote:

Ocean Doot wrote:

My point is simple: Wein comes off as an idiot when he says what he says in the way that he says.)

There's a simple explanation for that -- he is one!

So just because he's an idiot, that makes it all okay?

Your Len Wein apologism sickens me, sir.

Your apologism apologism sickens me, sir.

Li'l Jay · 28 May 2006

Ocean Doot wrote:

Li'l Jay wrote:

Ocean Doot wrote:

My point is simple: Wein comes off as an idiot when he says what he says in the way that he says.)

There's a simple explanation for that -- he is one!

So just because he's an idiot, that makes it all okay?

Your Len Wein apologism sickens me, sir.

No, all he had to say is "We might have never had Moore's Swamp-Thing," and he makes the same EXACT point, without opening it up for guys to miss it and get hung up on "Wein thinks he created Alan Moore!! Oh noes he didn't!!"

Ocean Doot · 25 Oct 2007

Li'l Jay wrote:

Ocean Doot wrote:

All of that said, "giving talent a chance to do their own take on characters is not an affront to humanity" ... if this is what you think Moore's point is, then you are misreading it as badly as you say I am misreading Wein's. Did you see the extended quote? It's not the "giving talent a chance to work on characters" thing that is the point of contention, it's the fact that in many cases, this is done against the wishes of the characters' creators. Not just Moore, but several significant creators in comics' long history.

I'm not missing that. That's all there is. Those are the two choices to consider -- live in a world where characters are locked down forever if their creator expresses that wish, or live in the world we live in. The point is I'd rather things be as they are -- give Claremont a shot at X-Men, and we win. Kirby was wrong. That's okay.

If it's about money, let the contracts, the lawyers, and if necessary the laws of the land solve that, and give the estates whatever money they're due. Separate question. I'm just saying that in the comics world we live in, new works get created with previous popular characters, I'm fine with that, Alan Moore will live, and Watchmen is not a special case.

This is an excellent response, but if I hadn't posted something that made you want to respond in the first place, you never would have written it.

Hanzo the Razor · 24 Jun 2007

Li'l Jay wrote:

Ocean Doot wrote:

All of that said, "giving talent a chance to do their own take on characters is not an affront to humanity" ... if this is what you think Moore's point is, then you are misreading it as badly as you say I am misreading Wein's. Did you see the extended quote? It's not the "giving talent a chance to work on characters" thing that is the point of contention, it's the fact that in many cases, this is done against the wishes of the characters' creators. Not just Moore, but several significant creators in comics' long history.

I'm not missing that. That's all there is. Those are the two choices to consider -- live in a world where characters are locked down forever if their creator expresses that wish, or live in the world we live in. The point is I'd rather things be as they are -- give Claremont a shot at X-Men, and we win. Kirby was wrong. That's okay.

If it's about money, let the contracts, the lawyers, and if necessary the laws of the land solve that, and give the estates whatever money they're due. Separate question. I'm just saying that in the comics world we live in, new works get created with previous popular characters, I'm fine with that, Alan Moore will live, and Watchmen is not a special case.

Can I just get a read on where people stand here? Who here has said that DC should not publish Watchmen sequels out of some ethical debt to Alan Moore? Who here has said DC should give the rights back to Alan Moore?

Li'l Jay · 28 May 2006

Ocean Doot wrote:

Li'l Jay wrote:

Ocean Doot wrote:

All of that said, "giving talent a chance to do their own take on characters is not an affront to humanity" ... if this is what you think Moore's point is, then you are misreading it as badly as you say I am misreading Wein's. Did you see the extended quote? It's not the "giving talent a chance to work on characters" thing that is the point of contention, it's the fact that in many cases, this is done against the wishes of the characters' creators. Not just Moore, but several significant creators in comics' long history.

I'm not missing that. That's all there is. Those are the two choices to consider -- live in a world where characters are locked down forever if their creator expresses that wish, or live in the world we live in. The point is I'd rather things be as they are -- give Claremont a shot at X-Men, and we win. Kirby was wrong. That's okay.

If it's about money, let the contracts, the lawyers, and if necessary the laws of the land solve that, and give the estates whatever money they're due. Separate question. I'm just saying that in the comics world we live in, new works get created with previous popular characters, I'm fine with that, Alan Moore will live, and Watchmen is not a special case.

This is an excellent response, but if I hadn't posted something that made you want to respond in the first place, you never would have written it.

I would not been able to write it if you didn't allow me to bring new ideas to your post, using the quote function.

Hanzo the Razor · 24 Jun 2007

Li'l Jay wrote:

No, all he had to say is "We might have never had Moore's Swamp-Thing," and he makes the same EXACT point, without opening it up for guys to miss it and get hung up on "Wein thinks he created Alan Moore!! Oh noes he didn't!!"

It's still a stupid point.

"I WAS OKAY WITH IT, SO HE SHOULD BE TOO."

Ocean Doot · 25 Oct 2007

Li'l Jay wrote:

Ocean Doot wrote:

Li'l Jay wrote:

Ocean Doot wrote:

My point is simple: Wein comes off as an idiot when he says what he says in the way that he says.)

There's a simple explanation for that -- he is one!

So just because he's an idiot, that makes it all okay?

Your Len Wein apologism sickens me, sir.

No, all he had to say is "We might have never had Moore's Swamp-Thing," and he makes the same EXACT point, without opening it up for guys to miss it and get hung up on "Wein thinks he created Alan Moore!! Oh noes he didn't!!"

But instead he said, "If I had felt about Swamp Thing the way Alan apparently does about Watchmen, Alan would never have even had a career here in the States, and this would all be moot," which opened it up for people to miss the point.

I'm glad I could be the one to show you the flaw in your reasoning.

Also, Len Wein doesn't own Swamp Thing; DC does. Thanks.

Ocean Doot · 25 Oct 2007

Li'l Jay wrote:

Ocean Doot wrote:

Li'l Jay wrote:

Ocean Doot wrote:

All of that said, "giving talent a chance to do their own take on characters is not an affront to humanity" ... if this is what you think Moore's point is, then you are misreading it as badly as you say I am misreading Wein's. Did you see the extended quote? It's not the "giving talent a chance to work on characters" thing that is the point of contention, it's the fact that in many cases, this is done against the wishes of the characters' creators. Not just Moore, but several significant creators in comics' long history.

I'm not missing that. That's all there is. Those are the two choices to consider -- live in a world where characters are locked down forever if their creator expresses that wish, or live in the world we live in. The point is I'd rather things be as they are -- give Claremont a shot at X-Men, and we win. Kirby was wrong. That's okay.

If it's about money, let the contracts, the lawyers, and if necessary the laws of the land solve that, and give the estates whatever money they're due. Separate question. I'm just saying that in the comics world we live in, new works get created with previous popular characters, I'm fine with that, Alan Moore will live, and Watchmen is not a special case.

This is an excellent response, but if I hadn't posted something that made you want to respond in the first place, you never would have written it.

I would not been able to write it if you didn't allow me to bring new ideas to your post, using the quote function.

I think from there we can extrapolate that you would never have even started posting at IMWAN, if Len Wein had not been so open-minded back in the 80s.

Li'l Jay · 28 May 2006

Alan Moore took the position this shouldn't be happening, and most of us are commenting on whether that position is justified.

I don't think anyone here at IMWAN took Alan Moore's side on whether it should be published. We're mostly either planning to buy it, or meh.

The discussion broke out from some of the commentary on the web, our response to it, and our response to Alan Moore.

Fraxon! · 20 Jul 1976

Li'l Jay wrote:

Ocean Doot wrote:

Li'l Jay wrote:

Ocean Doot wrote:

My point is simple: Wein comes off as an idiot when he says what he says in the way that he says.)

There's a simple explanation for that -- he is one!

So just because he's an idiot, that makes it all okay?

Your Len Wein apologism sickens me, sir.

No, all he had to say is "We might have never had Moore's Swamp-Thing," and he makes the same EXACT point

But that's NOT what he said. He said Moore wouldn't have had a career in the States if not for him. Which is idiotic.

Ocean Doot · 25 Oct 2007

Fraxon! wrote:

Li'l Jay wrote:

Ocean Doot wrote:

Li'l Jay wrote:

Ocean Doot wrote:

My point is simple: Wein comes off as an idiot when he says what he says in the way that he says.)

There's a simple explanation for that -- he is one!

So just because he's an idiot, that makes it all okay?

Your Len Wein apologism sickens me, sir.

No, all he had to say is "We might have never had Moore's Swamp-Thing," and he makes the same EXACT point

But that's NOT what he said. He said Moore wouldn't have had a career in the States if not for him. Which is idiotic.

Also, to add to that, Len Wein made an idiotic point, one that was full of idiocy.

Li'l Jay · 28 May 2006

Fraxon! wrote:

Li'l Jay wrote:

Ocean Doot wrote:

Li'l Jay wrote:

Ocean Doot wrote:

My point is simple: Wein comes off as an idiot when he says what he says in the way that he says.)

There's a simple explanation for that -- he is one!

So just because he's an idiot, that makes it all okay?

Your Len Wein apologism sickens me, sir.

No, all he had to say is "We might have never had Moore's Swamp-Thing," and he makes the same EXACT point

But that's NOT what he said. He said Moore wouldn't have had a career in the States if not for him. Which is idiotic.

Which was my point -- I called him an idiot.

Hanzo the Razor · 24 Jun 2007

Wein also co-created Wolverine.

Li'l Jay · 28 May 2006

Ocean Doot wrote:

Fraxon! wrote:

Li'l Jay wrote:

Ocean Doot wrote:

Li'l Jay wrote:

Ocean Doot wrote:

My point is simple: Wein comes off as an idiot when he says what he says in the way that he says.)

There's a simple explanation for that -- he is one!

So just because he's an idiot, that makes it all okay?

Your Len Wein apologism sickens me, sir.

No, all he had to say is "We might have never had Moore's Swamp-Thing," and he makes the same EXACT point

But that's NOT what he said. He said Moore wouldn't have had a career in the States if not for him. Which is idiotic.

Also, to add to that, Len Wein made an idiotic point, one that was full of idiocy.

You beat me to it, with more flair.

Li'l Jay · 28 May 2006

Have you guys ever heard Len Wein in an interview? He's a creamy doosh.

Fraxon! · 20 Jul 1976

Li'l Jay wrote:

You beat me to it, with more flair.

Doot?

Hanzo the Razor · 24 Jun 2007

If Wein's so idiotic, by extension, his creations are idiotic and one of his creations is the All-New, All-Different X-Men.

Doot just said the X-Men are idiotic.

Fraxon! · 20 Jul 1976

GAME CHANGER

Ocean Doot · 25 Oct 2007

Hanzo the Razor wrote:

If Wein's so idiotic, by extension, his creations are idiotic and one of his creations is the All-New, All-Different X-Men.

Doot just said the X-Men are idiotic.

His creations are idiotic, but he made up for that by giving Alan Moore and Chris Claremont their entire careers.

Before Watchmen

Who is WANline